This report presents the minimum 5-year results of a prospective, randomized, Level of Evidence I study that evaluated cruciate-sacrificing total knee arthroplasty using either a posterior-stabilized (PS) device or a condylar-stabilized (CS) device. We hypothesized that the clinical outcomes of both groups would be equivalent and that there would be differences in operative time and/or blood loss parameters.
One-hundred 11 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty were randomized to receive either a post-cam style tibial insert (PS, n = 56) or a more congruent anterior-lipped tibial insert (CS, n = 55). All posterior cruciate ligaments were sacrificed.
Comparison of the clinical scores and radiographic results between both groups were essentially equivalent with no statistically significant differences at the final 5-year evaluation, although the CS knee group had significantly fewer incidences of postoperative mechanical sensations (P = .01).
These results demonstrate that the CS knee provides excellent clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes that are comparable to the results achieved with the PS knee, with a lower incidence of mechanical sensations, and support the use of a CS device as an alternative to the PS device.
Copyright remains with the authors and publisher.
This report presents the minimum 5-year results of a prospective, randomized, Level of Evidence I study that evaluated cruciate-sacrificing total knee arthroplasty using either a posterior-stabilized (PS) device or a condylar-stabilized (CS) device. We hypothesized that the clinical outcomes of both groups would be equivalent and that there would be differences in operative time and/or blood loss parameters.
One-hundred 11 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty were randomized to receive either a post-cam style tibial insert (PS, n = 56) or a more congruent anterior-lipped tibial insert (CS, n = 55). All posterior cruciate ligaments were sacrificed.
Comparison of the clinical scores and radiographic results between both groups were essentially equivalent with no statistically significant differences at the final 5-year evaluation, although the CS knee group had significantly fewer incidences of postoperative mechanical sensations (P = .01).
These results demonstrate that the CS knee provides excellent clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes that are comparable to the results achieved with the PS knee, with a lower incidence of mechanical sensations, and support the use of a CS device as an alternative to the PS device.
Copyright remains with the authors and publisher.